N.C. Gen. Stat. » Chapter 1
NC General Statutes

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-83 (2026)

Change of venue

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NCLEGncleg.gov (official) JustiaChapter 1 CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

If the county designated for that purpose in the summons and complaint is not the proper one, the action may, however, be tried therein, unless the defendant, before the time of answering expires, demands in writing that the trial be conducted in the proper county, and the place of trial is thereupon changed by consent of parties, or  by order of the court.

The court may change the place of trial in the following cases:

(1) When the county designated for that purpose is not the proper one.

(2) When the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change.

(3) When the judge has, at any time, been interested as party or counsel.

(4) When motion is made by the plaintiff and the action is for divorce and the defendant has not been personally served with summons. (R.C., c. 31, ss. 115, 118; C.C.P., s. 69; 1870-1, c. 20; Code, s. 195; Rev., s. 425; C.S., s. 470; 1945, c. 141.)

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 104 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1947–2026 · leading case: Zetino-Cruz v. Benitez-Zetino, 791 S.E.2d 100 (N.C. Ct. App. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Zetino-Cruz v. Benitez-Zetino, 791 S.E.2d 100 (N.C. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 35× “4 We have been unable to find any case addressing the standard of review for a trial court's sua sponte change of venue in this type of factual situation, so we will look to the usual standards of review for questions regarding venue.”
Stokes v. Stokes, 811 S.E.2d 693 (N.C. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 114× “Where the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion to change venue was based on N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-83 (2), the convenience of the witnesses, and where a motion for change of venue filed contemporaneously with responsive pleadings is not untimely filed, the trial court’s…”
Stokes v. Stokes, 821 S.E.2d 161 (N.C. 2018). · cites it 19× “N.C.G.S. § 1-83 (2017). Thus, if "before the time of answering expires" a party demonstrates the venue is legally improper, it has a right to a change of venue.”
Carolina Forest Ass'n, Inc. v. White, 678 S.E.2d 725 (N.C. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 26× “First, according to N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1-83: If the county designated .”
Hawley v. Hobgood, 622 S.E.2d 117 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 17× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-83 (1) (2004). Therefore, Furches and Kennon are inapplicable.”
Thompson v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 535 S.E.2d 397 (N.C. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 15× “]” N.C.G.S. § 1-83. Under section 1-83(1), the court is given the authority to change the place of trial if “the county designated for that purpose is not the proper one.”
ITS Leasing, Inc. v. Ram Dog Enter., LLC, 696 S.E.2d 880 (N.C. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 17× “§ 1-83 (2) (2007), which provides: If the county designated for that purpose in the summons and complaint is not the proper one, the action may, however, be tried therein, unless the defendant, before the time of answering expires, demands in writing that the trial be conducted…”
Stern v. Cinoman, 728 S.E.2d 373 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 7× “Stern has appealed the order changing venue. Discussion Mr. Stern contends on appeal that venue was proper in Durham County based on his having brought suit in his capacity as guardian of the estate.”
Kiker v. Winfield, 759 S.E.2d 372 (N.C. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 13× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-83 further clarifies that, upon the timely motion of defendant, the trial court may transfer venue where it is improper.”
Odom v. Clark, 668 S.E.2d 33 (N.C. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 8× “Because the trial court made no such findings of fact, and those it made were supported by the evidence of record, there was no error.”
Miller v. Miller, 247 S.E.2d 278 (N.C. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 6× “” N.C.G.S. § 1-83. Defendant made a timely motion for removal under Rule 12(b), which requires that the motion be made at or before the time of filing an answer, and the motion was made in the proper manner.”
Terry v. Cheesecake Factory Rests., Inc., 799 S.E.2d 415 (N.C. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 21× “First, according to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-83 : If the county designated is not the proper one, the action may, however, be tried therein, unless the defendant, before the time of answering expires, demands in writing that the trial be conducted in the proper county, and the place…”
Show all 104 citing cases →
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-83(1) — 19 cases
Stokes v. Stokes, 821 S.E.2d 161 (N.C. 2018). “N.C.G.S. § 1-83 (2017). Thus, if "before the time of answering expires" a party demonstrates the venue is legally improper, it has a right to a change of venue.”
Thompson v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 535 S.E.2d 397 (N.C. Ct. App. 2000). “]” N.C.G.S. § 1-83. Under section 1-83(1), the court is given the authority to change the place of trial if “the county designated for that purpose is not the proper one.”
Hawley v. Hobgood, 622 S.E.2d 117 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005). “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-83 (1) (2004). Therefore, Furches and Kennon are inapplicable.”
Carolina Forest Ass'n, Inc. v. White, 678 S.E.2d 725 (N.C. Ct. App. 2009). “First, according to N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1-83: If the county designated .”
Hyde v. Anderson, 580 S.E.2d 424 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003).
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-83(2) — 31 cases
Stokes v. Stokes, 811 S.E.2d 693 (N.C. Ct. App. 2018). “Where the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion to change venue was based on N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-83 (2), the convenience of the witnesses, and where a motion for change of venue filed contemporaneously with responsive pleadings is not untimely filed, the trial court’s…”
Stokes v. Stokes, 821 S.E.2d 161 (N.C. 2018). “N.C.G.S. § 1-83 (2017). Thus, if "before the time of answering expires" a party demonstrates the venue is legally improper, it has a right to a change of venue.”
Carolina Forest Ass'n, Inc. v. White, 678 S.E.2d 725 (N.C. Ct. App. 2009). “First, according to N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1-83: If the county designated .”
Godley Const. Co., Inc. v. McDaniel, 253 S.E.2d 359 (N.C. Ct. App. 1979).
Smith v. Barbour, 571 S.E.2d 872 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002).
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-83(3) — 1 case
Holland v. Gryder, 283 S.E.2d 792 (N.C. Ct. App. 1981).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.